Quality does matter to … students faculty administrators institutions consortia accrediting agencies legislators tax-payers How do we … identify & recognize it? motivate & instill it? assess & measure it? insure it? assure it?
Peer Course Review Feedback Course Course Meets Quality Expectations Course Revision Instructional Designers Institutions Faculty Course Developers National Standards & Research Literature Rubric Faculty Reviewers Training Quality Matters: Peer Course Review Process
Factors Affecting Course Quality Course design QM REVIEWS THIS Course delivery (i.e. teaching, faculty performance) Course content Course management system Institutional infrastructure Faculty training and readiness Student engagement and readiness
For Our Purposes, Quality Is… More than average; more than “good enough” An attempt to capture what’s expected in an effective online course at about an 85% level Based on research and widely accepted standards 85 %
Eight General Standards: 1.Course Overview and Introduction 2.Learning Objectives 3.Assessment and Measurement 4.Resources and Materials 5.Learner Interaction 6.Course Technology 7.Learner Support 8.Accessibility Key components must align. Alignment: Critical course elements work together to ensure that students achieve the desired learning outcomes.
Course Learning Objectives (2) Resources, Materials (4) & Technology (6) Assessment and Measurement (3) Learner Interactions & Activities (5) Key sections that must align…
Rubric Scoring StandardsPointsRelative Value 173Essential 112Very Important 121Important TOTALS 4085 Team of 3 reviewers initially score individually One score per standard based on team majority Pre-assigned point value Yes/No decision; All/None points Consensus is NOT required
To Meet Expectations… A course must achieve: “Yes” on all 17 of the 3-point “essential” standards. A minimum of 72 out of 85 points 72/85 = 85%
Underlying Principles of QM… 1.Based in national standards of best practice, the research literature & instructional design principles 2.The course under review does not have to be “perfect” but better than just “good enough” (Standards met at about 85% level or better.) 3.Integral to a continuous quality improvement process 4.Valued as part of a faculty-driven, peer review process 5.Designed to promote student learning
Underlying Principles of QM (cont)…. 6.Designed to ensure all reviewed courses will eventually meet expectations 7.QM is a collegial review process, not an evaluation process 8.A review team must include an external peer reviewer 9.Set up so that the course faculty or instructor considered part of the review team